killing of it, to which no one
objects. The confounding of a painful vivisection and an experiment
which does not cause pain--either because the experiment itself is
painless, like those pertaining to the action of most drugs, or
because it is a trivial one and gives little suffering--has done great
damage to the cause of humanity and has placed the opponent of
vivisection at a great disadvantage.... A painless experiment on an
animal is unobjectionable."

This is all true enough. But can anyone call this paragraph a fair
statement of Dr. Bigelow's "later views" on animal experimentation? It
is merely a wise caution. Compare this brief quotation with the ninth
chaper of the book in the reader's hands. Will anyone, after reading
that chapter, maintain that THE THREE SENTENCES JUST CITED AFFORD A
FAIR SUMMARY OF THE DEAD SURGEON'S LATEST VIEWS?

The reader will note that in the passage just quoted from Bigelow,
something appears to have been omitted before the final sentence. On
turning to Dr. Bigelow's work, we find this sentence was eliminated
from the foregoing quotation.

"IF ALL EXPERIMENTS IN PHYSIOLOGY WERE AS PAINLESS AS THOSE IN
CHEMISTRY, THERE WOULD BE BUT ONE SIDE TO THE QUESTION."[1]

[1] Anaesthesia, by Henry J. Bigelow, M.D., p. 372.

Precisely! Then immediately following the words quoted by the author
of "Animal Experimentation," the reader will discover another most
significant passage which was suppressed by the author of "Animal
Experimentation":

"The extreme vivisector claims the liberty to inflict at his
discretion, PROTRACTED AND EXCRUCIATING PAIN upon any number of dogs,
horses, rabbits, guinea-pigs and other animals. The interest or
honest enthusiasm he may happen to feel in some subject of physiology,
however important, justifies in his mind THE EXHIBITION OF THIS
EXCESSIVE PAIN TO CLASSES, AND ITS REPETITION BY MEDICAL STUDENTS,
PRACTICALLY AT THEIR OPTION. THIS IS AN ABUSE. Inasmuch as the
reform of any abuse needs remedial measures, such measures have been
inaugurated by permanently organized societies, which, even though
they may not have been always and wholly right and temperate in their
action, HAVE ERRED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION."

What was the reason for these suppressions? Why this garbling of
Bigelow's "later views"? Do we find it impossible to comprehend why
his comparison of physiological experiments with the painless
procedures of chemistry should have been cut from t